Who wrote the Gospel we call "John's"?

[polonius]

This seems like a question the answer to which is self-evident.

Not really. Was the gospel signed or does it state John wrote this gospel?

If not, how is it determined to have been written by John?

[otseng]

Fair enough, I can't say I agree but that's probably because as one of Jehovah's Witnesses my approach it to always adopt the position that harmonize all four gospels accepting that all four are without error.

I'd like to go back to this. If you mean each account are all factually correct, it might be difficult to harmonize all of them. It'll take too long to go through all the discrepancies and it's not entirely relevant to the topic to harmonize them all. I believe each author of the gospels presented their own testimony of what they believed happened. Just like if four people witness an accident, each will have a different perspective and might recall the event differently. Each might believe their own version to be true, but it might not exactly match what really happened. Like a court case, we have to take what each witness says and try to reconstruct the actual event, even if specific details are conflicting.

With the fourth gospel, the author devotes 5 chapters to what happened in the upper room. The other gospels devote only one chapter. With so much detail presented by TDWJL on that night, it's interesting he never mentions partaking of the supper or of the elements. Why present so much detail yet omit what we consider an important sacrament?

[JehovahsWitness]

Fair enough, I can't say I agree but that's probably because as one of Jehovah's Witnesses my approach it to always adopt the position that harmonize all four gospels accepting that all four are without error.

I'd like to go back to this. If you mean each account are all factually correct, it might be difficult to harmonize all of them.

Yes that is what I mean and that is what makes Jehovah's Witnesses in my opinion unique. On the surface many say they believe the bible as truth but, as this discussion illustrates, what most mean is they believe that the bible contains factual inaccuracies but they don't mind. We believe that the bible contains no inacurracies* and so will always take the reading that best harmonized with the rest of scripture, both what is explicit (there were 12 with Jesus at the table in the last supper) and implicit (there is no mention of any comings and goings except for Judas, so the 12 alone participated in the proceedings).

* with the exception of some identifiable copyiest errors

The above seems to me, to be the key to avoiding wild speculations that introduce elements that In my opinion reflect a lack of confidence in the authors. It is one thing to say "I believe the bible" but does it not violate the spirit of this statement to say "I also believe it is sometimes wrong or at best lacks essential information that allows us to get an coherent picture of major events"? Of course the writer of John himself accepts no account is exhaustive, containing all details so yes we have to fill in the gaps on occassions and this can indeed be challenging but I believe that filling the gaps should always be done on the basis that what information has been provided is entirely accurate and complete in that no essential fundamental truths have been overlooked.

Of course what is "essential" is subjective, I accept that but, returning to the topic, essential must include details that would make sense of what is being described. And its John, more than any other gospel that kindly "fills in the gaps" for us. If anyone would have told us about a "thirteenth" entering the room, it would have been him. The silence is deafening. Since two of the four gospel writers specifically tell us that there were 12 (not 13) at the table with Jesus on that final night and none make mention of a thirteenth, the reading that suggests a major oversight in the narrative is not the one Jehovah's Witnesses take.

We all have to make a choice about what we are reading, there is literally no limit to what we can add to a bible narrative, Jehovah's Witnesses will take the approach that unless there is a solid scriptural basis for a suggestion we will not introduce them or be dogmatic about our speculations. We dont believe there is any solid basis to suggest that "a thirteen disciple" taking his place at Jesus side during the couse of their eating the last supper.




JW

[polonius]

JehovahsWitness wrote:

Fair enough, I can't say I agree but that's probably because as one of Jehovah's Witnesses my approach it to always adopt the position that harmonize all four gospels accepting that all four are without error.

QUESTION: How do you deal with the obvious contradictions?

Like how many animals did Jesus send for and ride into Jerusalem. And how was he born during the reign of Nero (d. 4 B.C) and again during the 6 AD census?

And did Simon have his name changed to Peter before (John's gospel) or after he became an Apostle (Matthew's gospel)?

The Old Testament is far worse. For example, how did the Hebrews remain in Egypt for 400 years and Joseph, his father and his brothers produce 1.2 million offspring by the time of the Exodus? ("600,000 Hebrew fighting men (males)" and about the same number of Hebrew women?)

[JehovahsWitness]

JehovahsWitness wrote:

Fair enough, I can't say I agree but that's probably because as one of Jehovah's Witnesses my approach it to always adopt the position that harmonize all four gospels accepting that all four are without error.

QUESTION: How do you deal with the obvious contradictions?

I see none. The way I interpret scripture there are absolutely no contradictions.



Regards,


JW

[polonius]

JehovahsWitness wrote:

Fair enough, I can't say I agree but that's probably because as one of Jehovah's Witnesses my approach it to always adopt the position that harmonize all four gospels accepting that all four are without error.

QUESTION: How do you deal with the obvious contradictions?

I see none. The way I interpret scripture there are absolutely no contradictions.



Regards,


JW

RESPONSE: Really? Lets take a quick look.

Then the Lord said to Abram, “Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for 400 years.� (Genesis 15:13)

And God spoke to this effect—that his offspring would be sojourners in a land belonging to others, who would enslave them and afflict them 400 years. (Acts 7:6)

So according to the Bible starting with Joseph and his brothers, the Hebrews were in Egypt for about 200 years before the Exodus.

Exodus 12:37 claims that "“The Israelites set out from Rameses for Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, not counting the children."

And adding Jewish women (wifes) we com up with a total of about 1.2 million people all descendents of 10 Hebrews 400 years earlier?

(Had Viagra been invented?)

Psalm 104:5 says, You put the earth on it’s foundations, and from there it will never move.

So the sun must revolve around the earth, right?

It’s fascinating to look at the belief system of fundamentalists !

[JehovahsWitness]

Psalm 104:5 says, You put the earth on it’s foundations, and from there it will never move.

So the sun must revolve around the earth, right?

What has this got to do with the gospel of John? I do believe there are rules against derailling a thread and I fail to see the connection between the point of discussion and your questions.

JW

[polonius]

JW posted:
polonius wrote:



Psalm 104:5 says, You put the earth on it’s foundations, and from there it will never move.

So the sun must revolve around the earth, right?

[post] I see none. The way I interpret scripture there are absolutely no contradictions. [/post]

JW then posted:
[post]
[post] What has this got to do with the gospel of John? I do believe there are rules against derailling a thread and I fail to see the connection between the point of discussion and your questions. [/post]

RESPONSE: It derails nothing. It addresses the basic error in what you claim of how you interpret scripture. “The way I interpret scripture there are absolutely no contradictions.� Thus the evidence shows that your "interruption" is in error.

You do believe that the earth moves and revolves around the sun, don’t you? This is only one of may errors and contradictions in scripture.

However, the Church taught this error until about 1700. Read the about the trial of Galileo.

“Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the sun, and the motion of the earth, were qualified by the Theological Qualifiers as follows: 1. The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures. 2. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith.�

"We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo . . . have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world; also, that an opinion can be held and supported as probable, after it has been declared and finally decreed contrary to the Holy Scripture,"

The Church maintained, like yourself, that there are absolutely no contradictions in scripture. Is that a credible opinion today?

I'm sorry that you fail to see the obvious, that evidently there are contradictions in scripture. The earth is not fixed.

"The way I interpret scripture there are absolutely no contradictions" Perhaps you would like to revise your original statement that there are no errors in scripture. Or your implication that you interpret scripture correctly or that it is not occasionally in error.

[otseng]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Yes, I agree, let's not discuss all the discrepancies in the Bible here.

However, focusing on the discrepancies of the last meal would be relevant.

[otseng]

* with the exception of some identifiable copyiest errors

Since all sources of the Bible that we have are copies, then nothing would be exempt from this. Humans can be fallible in copying texts of the Bible, whether intentionally or unintentionally changing the text. Likewise, I believe it is possible for the original Biblical authors to be fallible in recalling events in their lives. The gospel authors are not elevated to infallibility status. It's entirely possible things they recounted could be factually incorrect. However, unlike the skeptics, I do not then say we should discount the entire Bible. The Bible is still authoritative. We still have to put together the testimony of the gospel writers and judge for ourselves what actually happened. We are already doing this with all the copies of the Bible and trying to determine what would be the original text of the Bible.

And its John, more than any other gospel that kindly "fills in the gaps" for us.

Yes, the fourth gospel mentions things not found in the synoptic gospels. However, it also mentions things that are found in the synoptic gospels. Curiously the fourth gospel does mention Peter denying Jesus, but never mentions the Eucharist.

Jhn 13:38 KJV - Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice.

Since two of the four gospel writers specifically tell us that there were 12 (not 13) at the table with Jesus on that final night and none make mention of a thirteenth, the reading that suggests a major oversight in the narrative is not the one Jehovah's Witnesses take.

I also believe there were only 12 at the Passover meal (last supper). Though it's possible more could have been there during the meal (such as the owner of the home), it's not relevant to my argument.

Though only 12 were there for supper, more could have arrived after the meal, including Lazarus.

Another point to support this (though I grant it's very hypothetical) is when Jesus washed the disciples' feet. He did this after supper.

Jhn 13:2-5 KJV - And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's [son], to betray him; Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God; He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself. After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe [them] with the towel wherewith he was girded.

Typically they would wash their feet when entering the home. But, the apostles already had finished the meal when Jesus started washing their feet. So, why would Jesus wash their feet then? More disciples could have arrived after the meal was over and prompted Jesus to wash their feet when they arrived. There was a practical need for it and it was also a teaching moment.

[JehovahsWitness]

Though only 12 were there for supper, more could have arrived after the meal, including Lazarus.

Yes but upon what scriptural basis do you thus conclude? The identifying of "the betrayer" was when they were reclined at the table (and there was evidently enough food left on the table for some to be used), so what relevance that Jesus at some point washed feet? It is unlikely that they reclined to eat with unwashed feet but even if they did, I fail to se why this would signal a thirteenth disciple ?

... are you suggesting that Jesus hadn't washed their feet before eating but when a new arrival came this arrival that prompted him to get up and wash everyone's feet? This is possible, but again anything is possible, if we are going to safeguard ourselves from unscriptural speculation we need more than it was possible. Is it logical that they all ate the meal with unwashed feet ? Or are you suggesting Jesus washed their feet twice? Or that he got up and washed only the new arrivals then lay back down to handle the food that remained?

I agree that the feet washing was a teaching moment, but I fail to see how it imposes a thirteenth arrival. That the events continued for some time is a given, is your arguement that since there was time for a thirteenth to arrive, he did? Can you see that what I am saying that anything is possible but since there is no real scriptural basis for that "anything" we don't introduce it.

Anyway, I believe a reading that reflects confidence in the author not neglecting such a significant detail lends to a a contextual coherence and narrows down the beloved disciple to one of the twelve. Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree on this.

JW